November 27, 2014

June 14, 2012


Pentagon announces Gay Pride Month

The Associated Press just put out the news.

I’ve sometimes said, “It’s the U.S. Army, not the Salvation Army.”  Right now, a gay or lesbian service member is at acute risk of being in harm’s way for my freedom.

Gays and lesbians in public service are not the same as corrupting a church with anti-Biblical teaching and practices.

Here’s what I would ask, though:  Is there a “Father’s Month” observed by the military?  Or a “Mother’s Month”?  Or a “Military Families Month”?  This line from the article seems strange:

This month’s event will follow a long tradition in the Pentagon of recognizing diversity in America’s armed forces. Hallway displays and activities, for example, have marked Black History Month and Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month.

Just having sexual desire and orientation gets you a month of recognition?  It’s the same as an ethnic identity?  And an orientation deserves honor without regard to how one lives it out?

Again, I want to stay off a high horse here.  There’s a not-so-pretty history of straight sex in places where troops are deployed.  Women “enjoyed” and abandoned; children sired and never fathered.  But then why shouldn’t serial impregnators get a month, if that’s their thing and they are otherwise satisfactory troops?  And why aren’t service people who are committed dads, moms and spouses honored as much as someone who happens to have a same sex attraction?

An election year is at hand.  Sloppy symbolism is in season. 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

17 comments

And why aren’t service people who are committed dads, moms and spouses honored as much as someone who happens to have a same sex attraction?

Simple, there are no well paid lobbyists for moms,dads and spouses. It just wouldn’t be *right*.

Oh and when we see Anglo pride month or German Pride month? Uh huh. that’s what I thought too…...... never.

[1] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-14-2012 at 09:07 PM · [top]

This is pretty clearly campaign 2012, and it is on our dime.

[2] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-14-2012 at 09:13 PM · [top]

“I say to you that these have received their reward.”

[3] Posted by The Plantagenets on 6-15-2012 at 02:19 AM · [top]

I think the president has realized that he has alienated a lot of his constituency, past the point of return, and he’s going for broke with other groups.  If he doesn’t get re-elected, he can claim to be a political martyr;  if he does get re-elected, well by yiminy, he can claim that The American People admired his moral courage in addition to his wonderful economic policies of the past four years.

[4] Posted by J Eppinga on 6-15-2012 at 03:17 AM · [top]

I’m so glad I’m no longer in the Army.  We had our problems, but there was at least a professed adherence to traditional notions of decency and honorable conduct.  Now, we officially celebrate deviant sex.  Lord have mercy.

[5] Posted by evan miller on 6-15-2012 at 07:39 AM · [top]

[I]Right now, a gay or lesbian service member is at acute risk of being in harm’s way for my freedom[/I]

Which is their choice; it’s a volunteer service which has one primary mission…...to defend the USA from all enemies, outside and within.

It’s not a social service community, it’s not Marriage Encounter Weekend, it’s not a family sitting service, it’s not an alternative to college, it’s not a women’s self-esteem enhancement organization…...

It is the US Military and it has a mission.  Anything not having to do with the mission or in support of the mission is not central to the functioning that supports the primary mission.

And all this is nothing but a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook to destroy the moral integrity and moral fiber of every institution in this country so that another order can be put in place.

[6] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 6-15-2012 at 07:50 AM · [top]

Right, Capt. Father Warren - my comment on gays/lesbians sharing the risk is only in defense of their serving - not a defense of a month long Obama campaign event or any other detraction from the mission to defend the nation.

[7] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-15-2012 at 09:06 AM · [top]

This seems related to instructing NASA that its primary mission was to reach out to Muslims.

[8] Posted by Pb on 6-15-2012 at 10:45 AM · [top]

The military and the military industrial establishment have long been used for social purposes - often for the good of the country. True integration, programs to provide realistic training for the hardcore unemployed and profoundly disabled to give them a shot at gainful work, and other initiatives come to mind. Under “Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell” a number of homosexuals served the military and their country with honor, courage, and distinction. Some initiatives have not worked so well. For liberals who truly believe that gay rights are the equivalent of civil rights (wrongly in my opinion), celebration of gays in the military as a part of a celebration of diversity in the military (which, again in my opinion and my Air Force career, is worthy of celebration) is logical and appropriate as well as possibly being political pandering.  A whole month is more than a bit of stretch however.

[9] Posted by Don+ on 6-15-2012 at 11:23 AM · [top]

This is so over-the-top ridiculous…there are no words…

[10] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-15-2012 at 12:09 PM · [top]

My uncle and grandfather were both Lt. Cols’ and fought in 3 wars between them.  They are turning over in their graves.  My son is at AFA; I have 2 surrogate kids in the AF and Marines; they can’t stand all these stupid PC changes…it’s just terrible to use the military for this sort of social crapola.

[11] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-15-2012 at 12:23 PM · [top]

Sorry, Don+, but I would suggest that it is tokenism of the worst sort. It is but one more insult to the Rule of Law, specifically to the principle that each person is equal before the law. One’s sexual conduct, absent involving the commission of a legal offense, is not a fit topic for comment or celebration, in or out of the military. The fact that someone:

• does, or does not, have same-sex attraction, or

• does or does not act on their sexual orientation in private,

has no relevance to the value of that person’s military service, and no relevance to the dignity with which God demands we treat them.

What you acknowledge has long been the case is not necessarily thereby justified.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[12] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 6-15-2012 at 04:34 PM · [top]

Re [12]. I am not particularly happy and I am not supportive of celebrating gays in the military but I can see a rationale for it and I do think that diversity - at least in concept - the military’s successful integration of diverse individuals into a military unit -is worthy of celebration. And some gays - absent publicity - have served the military and country well.  And the military, at the top levels, is political.  I do agree that same sex attraction and orientation is irrelevant to their military service per se. It is the service and not the nature of those serving that is to be celebrated.  I still would say those homosexuals quietly and effectively serving under “don’t ask - don’t tell” demonstrated admirable discipline.

[13] Posted by Don+ on 6-15-2012 at 09:12 PM · [top]

[13] Don+,

In saying that “(i)t is the service and not the nature of those serving that is to be celebrated,” I believe yiou and I are in full, or at least near full, agreement.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer, LCDR, USN [ret]

[14] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 6-15-2012 at 10:54 PM · [top]

The President of the United States orders US Armed Forces to salute and celebrate queer behavior the entire month of June 2012? Unbelievable. Should Bradley Manning be the national honoree? Is this the final act in the destruction of western civilization? Sodomy in the US, by spreading HIV, has killed more young Americans than died in combat in WWII. Homosexuality is a severe and costly disability that removes some of the brightest and most talented Americans from the gene pool. Sodomy, whether same-sex or hetero, is disgusting and degrading, and as deserving of pride as AIDS or the bubonic plague.  Diversity is not a virtue and is not inherently better or worse than uniformity.  It is absurd to suggest that sexual perversity (which is more often accompanied by other psychological baggage, e.g. Bradley Manning) is equivalent to ethnicity.

Mark Adams Brown
San Angelo, Texas
June 15, 2012

[15] Posted by MarkABrown on 6-15-2012 at 11:37 PM · [top]

It is the service and not the nature of those serving that is to be celebrated.  I still would say those homosexuals quietly and effectively serving under “don’t ask - don’t tell” demonstrated admirable discipline.

But they’re not so quiet now, are they? How is it “admirable” not to violate the terms (DADT) that they agreed to in the first place? That is mere honesty, the least one can do. It is no more admirable than not robbing a bank is in itself “admirable”.

As to effective service, that is admirable. But not if it was done for the sake of emotionally blackmailing people into making concessions to a small special interest group whose highest guiding principle is not the welfare of this country, but promotion of the sexual urges in their heads.

[16] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-16-2012 at 09:26 AM · [top]

It’s the same as an ethnic identity? 

The basis of gay rights advocacy is an affirmative answer to that question.

Homosexuality is a severe and costly disability

And there’s the truth of it that we have to argue. Psychiatry caved to political propaganda, giving an air of “science” to that which is anything but scientific.  The public institutions of the country -in this case, the military - have accepted the claim of an ontological state of “being gay”. It’s our job to prove that claim false.

[17] Posted by Words Matter on 6-17-2012 at 02:15 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.